1995 (3) TMI 496 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of plaint.
2. Plaintiff's entitlement to reliefs without specifically seeking redemption of pledge.
3. Applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.
4. Protection under proviso to Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act.
5. Plaintiff's ability to sue the defendant No.1, a mercantile agent.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) of the Civil Procedure Code for rejection of plaint:
The defendant No.4 filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) CPC seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds that the plaintiff had not sought the relief of redemption of pledge, which is the only remedy available. The court noted that while such applications are typically entertained at a preliminary stage, the jurisdiction to reject a plaint can be exercised at any stage. The court decided to hear the application on merits despite its belated filing, emphasizing that the grounds for rejection of the plaint should be considered rather than the stage of filing.

2. Plaintiff's entitlement to reliefs without specifically seeking redemption of pledge:
The plaintiff had not explicitly sought the relief of redemption of pledge in the plaint. However, the court emphasized that the substance of the reliefs sought should be considered over the technicalities of the language used. The court referred to several precedents, including the Supreme Court's decision in Hindalco Industries Ltd vs. Union of India, which supports granting reliefs not specifically asked for if they are consistent with the specific claim. The court concluded that the reliefs sought by the plaintiff, though styled differently, substantively amounted to seeking redemption of pledge.

3. Applicability of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act:
The defendant No.4 contended that a bare suit for declaration is hit by the provisions of Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act. The court disagreed, noting that the suit was not for declaration alone but included consequential reliefs. The court held that the suit was not barred by Section 34 of the Specific Relief Act.

4. Protection under proviso to Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act:
The defendant No.4 argued that defendant No.3 is protected by the proviso to Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act. The court found that the plaint did not allege defendant No.1 to be in possession of the shares as a mercantile agent and that the plaint alleged malafides, lack of bonafides, and lack of due care and caution on the part of the defendants. The court held that the allegations in the plaint were sufficient to challenge the validity of the sale under Section 27 of the Sale of Goods Act.

5. Plaintiff's ability to sue the defendant No.1, a mercantile agent:
The court noted that the plaintiff had alleged that neither defendant No.1 nor defendant No.2 had the authority to sell the shares without the plaintiff's consent. The court held that the plaintiff's allegations of malafides and lack of authority were sufficient to maintain the suit against defendant No.1, even if defendant No.1 was a mercantile agent.

Conclusion:
The court dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint filed by defendant No.4, concluding that the plaint was not liable to be rejected under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC. The court emphasized the need to consider the substance of the reliefs sought and the allegations made in the plaint, rather than being guided by technicalities. The suit was held to be maintainable, and the trial was allowed to proceed.